Is ‘Livable’ Another Word for ‘Boring’?

Melbourne has been named the world’s most ‘livable’ city for the third year running, but how does it compare with other urban centers?

Melbourne: So lovely. So… livable.

Every year, the Economist Intelligence Unit releases a list of 140 cities and ranks them in terms of their “livability.” For the third year running, Melbourne has topped the list, edging out Vienna and Vancouver. In fact, there was so little change in this year’s rankings that only 13 of all the surveyed cities changed their scores over the past six months, while the rankings of the top 10 cities remained exactly the same as last year.

Using both qualitative and quantitative measures, the rankings rate “relative comfort” for more than 30 factors across five categories: stability, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and culture and environment. The final scores are calculated as a percentage ranging from 1 (“intolerable”) to a perfect score of 100 (“ideal”).

Tellingly, in addition to being ranked in relation to other cities on the list, they’re also ranked relative to New York – a city that everyone, apparently, has an opinion on.

Half of the cities are in Australia and New Zealand, three are in Canada, and two are in Europe. The common denominators: They’re all medium-size cities in prosperous countries, with relatively low population densities.

It’s an equation that leads to low crime rates, functional infrastructure and plenty of recreational activities for residents. So, while laid-back Melbourne may lack the glitter and verve of, say, Paris (No. 16, with 94.8 percentage points), Tokyo (No. 18, with 94.7), London (No. 55, with 87.2) or New York (No. 56, with 86.6), it trumps all of them in terms of crime, congestion and public transport (though commuters on the Myki might beg to differ).

Does that mean non-Melbournians should all pack up and decamp to Australia’s most livable metropolis? Not necessarily.

“I find Melbourne a really boring town, so more livable means really dull,” a male police officer in Sydney told us, though he wouldn’t give his name because he was working undercover in a park.

“I live in Sydney because it’s interesting, not because it’s comfortable,” he added. (Note to readers: We checked his badge, and he’s the genuine article.)

Though the top 10 cities in the EIU’s rankings may be pleasant and easy to live in, they’re not high on most people’s lists of top cities to visit (for that, see Bangkok). After all, they can hardly be described as dynamic. Before Melbourne assumed the No. 1 ranking, it was Vancouver that came out on top – a spot it occupied for almost a decade owing to the fact that as a city, it’s incredibly stable.

The question is, do you want to live in a livable (read “tolerable”) city or a dynamic one? The answer is entirely personal. Big cities like Tokyo, London and New York suffer in the rankings because of higher crime rates and overburdened infrastructure, dragging down perceptions of how “comfortable” they are. Yet when it comes to recreational offerings – including nightlife, culture and entertainment – they’re hard to beat.

Of course, where you live can be unstable or downright dangerous – which brings us to the lower rankings on the list. Below are the 10 least livable cities according to the report, bearing in mind that it was designed to cover cities that people might want to live in or travel to (which is why you won’t find Kabul or Baghdad mentioned):

The biggest downward trend was for cities in China due to unrest across the country. Everything from labor disputes to anti-Japanese protests prompted a decline in the livability rankings for Chinese cities overall, cancelling out improvements in other factors that would have otherwise boosted their positions on the list. As a result, 13 cities are at the very bottom tier of livability, with ratings below 50%.

Between the two poles of the spectrum are plenty of cities considered highly livable, whether their defining qualities are convenience, ease and comfort, or energy, soul and grit. The report points out that more than a third of the cities in the rankings fall within the “highest tier of livability,” with No. 1 (Melbourne) through No. 64 (Santiago, Chile) considered “broadly comparable” despite more than 16 percentage points between them.

That may be why these rankings are such a heated source of debate. Embedded within the rankings are micro-rankings, in which cities with longtime rivalries pit themselves against each other: Hong Kong versus Singapore, for instance, or Melbourne versus Sydney (see above).

What makes a city livable? Would you want to live in the world’s most comfortable city, or the world’s most dynamic and interesting?

Calling it "boring" is simply trying to pick out fault in what really is one of the world's most successful cities.

1:59 am September 2, 2013

Bill wrote:

Claude you seem like a fairly reasonable person so I’m surprised you didn’t notice Anonymous’ xenophobic comments. After name-dropping his elite, private school upbringing in Oak Bay, he went on to say “...the only people that live there are (or want to) are aging baby boomers and the 3rd world… “ and … “I only stayed to do my MBA and watch my property values rise from when I got in during April of 2001 I cashed out to some foreign fool.” Since he says he is now happy in the southern US I simply made the not-too far-fetched observation that his values around over-seas immigrants may be a better fit there. Yes I’ve spent lots of time in the southern US. Pockets of liberalism like Austin, Key West and Decatur are the exceptions that make the rule and even so, friends who live in those places tell me they always feel the nearness of the misogyny and racism that is the southern US.
I’m not from western Canada and I’m a life-long, intrepid traveller. I chose Vancouver after living in many areas of Canada and the US and trekking through most continents. I spent a large chunk of my life in the San Francisco Bay area which has never been called boring. However, after 13 years of never-ending drought, forest fires and earthquakes interspersed with flash floods and mudslides not to mention the ubiquitous right-wing, mean-spirited plebiscites and gophers eating the dahlias - I was only too happy to move back to Canada. I hope you get to live your dream of living in a place you find less annoying than Vancouver but after the honeymoon is over, I think you’ll find that every place on earth has a litany of mixed blessings and they often have drawbacks far worse than Vancouver’s winter drizzle and Canadian complacency.
Before commenting on other peoples’ world view you should expand your own. Yes, I wish Vancouver – in addition to astonishing beauty, diversity and civility – had more theater, better rapid transit, La Scala, Covent Garden, MOMA, Trader Joes, Macys, the Louvre, Bellagio, Wrigley Field and the Taj Mahal. But we’re getting there and every healthy human endeavour is characterized by resilience and ambition – for a city that means striving to be world class. Your sarcasm on that account is beneath you. I always wince when the Economist survey comes out and year-after-year names Melbourne, Vienna and Vancouver as the three most liveable cities. It has become a yearly demonstration of the tall poppy syndrome as detractors come out of the woodwork and try to mow them down. I come from a hard-scrapple mining town and I’m proud to have a successful, happy life in Vancouver and to share its beauty with wonderful people from all over the globe. Finally, let me point out that the Economist survey is based on solid, empirical indicators and critical thinking not the random disappointments of whiners and so – world-class magazines all agree - we have much to be grateful about 

2:51 pm August 31, 2013

Claude wrote:

@Bill

Ouch! Bill what are you doing? What was misogynist or racist about anon's post? Nothing from what I see. Like myself, he clearly just didn't like the city. Personally, I feel Vancouver is an overrated city. It isn't world class and frankly it always rural roots in one way or another. Mostly it's it's insular, provincial and complacent people. They settle for so little and I believe that's whats behind it's ongoing and tedious world-class Vancouver campaign. They're not trying to convince the world but themselves so they don't have to shake themselves out of the complacency they're in. They can continue to cruise on autopilot indefinitely. I know that's a little general but you know the running joke in Canada is? That hockey isn't Canada's national pastime, complacency is. There must be something to it or it wouldn't be a running joke. I'm in Vancouver because my parents are elderly but trust me when I say If I didn't have to be here I wouldn't, it's a city without magic and please don't get me started on the rain, Ugh! There isn't a day that goes by I don't want to leave. If anon can compete outside of Canada and more power to him.
As for your post calling the south a "misogynist' and "racist climate" Not all city's are like that there are artisan community's in Arizona and Texas. Austin is famously liberal and a great city. A friend of mine relocated there from Vancouver and loves it. Sadly bill , you' re just showing your limited world view. Maybe you found your place in Wooorld claaass Vancouver?

10:03 am August 31, 2013

Bill wrote:

Dear Anonymous, A little bitter are we? Sorry you didn't make it in Vancouver but glad things are improving in the "southern US". Perhaps the misogynist, racist climate suits your mind set better.

8:20 am August 31, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

Vancouver isn’t vibrant or exciting, it’s as dead as a doornail. I lived in False Creek for 11 years so I know how bland and lame that town is. Dining was also bland and uninspired. Vancouverites to this day are the most arrogant closed off unworldly bunch I have ever met. Far worse than Americans, and I'm in the Southern USA now. What baffles me is that people actually pay to live there. I love living in the USA now, as a dual citizen and we’ll never go back to Canada. I couldn’t justify doing my MBA with zero real career prospects in the Vancouver ” business district” ( laughable) and then driving up and down Broadway, Granville and Seymour thinking that bubble tea, camping,fishing and the Canucks is actually worth living there for and deluding myself in thinking its cosmopolitan. It isn’t a big city, a world class city or even really a city. It’s a large sleepy tourist village that wishes it matters on the world stage and the propaganda there just proves it.I hate Vancouver so much it makes my blood boil and get angry even thinking about it. I went to GNS private school in Victoria BC in Oak Bay. The lot of my old classmates either moved away to live in real cities and have real lives or went to private school and didn’t become successful at all. Canadian schools don’t seem to that much better. It’s what silly Canucks tell themselves to spite and convince themselves to the USA. No more Granville Island, no more skiing, no more small town people. A buddy of mine just become an oral surgeon, he moved to NYC to start his practice, why on earth would he choose NYC over the “best place on earth” ?maybe vancouver isn’t on the map for educated people. Way to go Vancouver!!! the only people that live there are( or want to) are aging baby boomers and the 3rd world… what a city !!!!! And one final comment, I never lived in a city like Vancouver where people pretended to be rich like they do there, what the hell kind of careers do people do there? I never figured that out. I know engineers that bag groceries at save on foods in east van, my realtor was an engineer but realized that he would never have a real career as an engineer there so in 1986 became a realtor .Vancouver is a poor city, with piss poor opportunities. I only stayed to do my MBA and watch my property values rise from when I got in during April of 2001 I cashed out to some foreign fool. I'm so happy I left.